There are three levels of minimum wage, and the rates from 1st October 2007 are:

* £5.52 per hour for workers aged 22 years and older
* A development rate of £4.60 per hour for workers aged 18-21 inclusive
* £3.40 per hour for all workers under the age of 18, who are no longer of compulsory school age.

Some people drop out of education because it is a financial necessity for them in terms of helping to support their family. They are not helped at all by this wage (I suppose there could be other policies in place to help these people though, e.g. benefits, tax breaks, but I'm not too clued up there)

Its also alsmost too logical; the motivations behind dropping out of education are many and cannot all be reduced to money. Poor standards of education, bullying, an alienating currciulum etc could be construed as more important factors

it's easily enough to feed the receipient for a week ... do parents really rely on their children to make a substantial contribution to the household budget? if a 16 year old was earning 3k a year then i can see that it would make life a great deal easier, but that shouldn't represent a significant portion of household income

There of course very few under 18s living outside the parental home or in a position to have to contribute financially. But I'd still say the few in this position are not helped by the wage limit or EMA.

EMA is provided to help with the costs of education post-16; travel costs (not really an issue for those under 16), the cost of text and course books and the cost of stationery (again, not issues pre-16). What would really be left after these expenses are taken out, considering that not all people recieving EMA would be eligible for the full £30 per week?

parents are so poor that they are reliant on their children to help them out financially will receive the full amount. And considering the full payment of EMA for an academic year will be over 1k, the deduction of still subsidised travel expenses doesn't dent it that much.

the fact is that people who stay in education until 18 have vastly improved prospects for the rest of their working lives. it's very silly, for the sake of 3.5k a year to give up what is in the range of 30-70k over a lifetime

And EMA isn't simply paid to a-level students. it is also paid to people doing NVQs and apprenticeships. And again, if you can incentivise training and education early on it will likely benefit the individual for the rest of their life.

one last point ... if you entice people out of sixth form and into work because you are offereing a better wage, will you not be displacing those 16 and 17 year olds already doing jobs for the meagre wage? Might an employer not regard someone bright enough to be doing a-levels as a better bet than a 16-year old drop out?

If so, in raising the minimum wage to 5.50 an hour for people under 18, might you not be catastrophically damanaging those with the worst job prospects of all?

But I'm not wholly convinced that a better wage would entice people out of sixth form. The people there are mostly aware of their future prospects and have made the conscious decision to stay in further education because they have certain career aspirations, of which money is only one of many motivations.

Those 16-17 years olds earning this meagre wage are fucked already if they aren't living in the parental home with no financial obligations.

Also, most 16-17 year olds not in further education are from low-income backgrounds and so are arguably more likely to have financial obligations which such a negligble wage are unlikely to fulfill

I don't think they are always specific but I think at that age, people know they want to do something with their lives. In fact, I'd say thats the age at whihc most people are under the illusion they will do something utterly fantastic and world-changing with their lives.

Do you honestly think people continue in education afer 16 because they have carefully considered their financial future? :p

I think we're arguing at crossed points here. My point still remains that recieving EMA, whatever course the recepient is on, does not substitute for a living wage (not that it should). Your point that level of education and earning power correlate is also of course correct. But what becomes of those who fall between the cracks?

"A study in Canada cited by Alan Johnson when Education Secretary found that the introduction of tighter provincial restrictions on leaving school between 1920 and 1990 had helped in raising both average attainment and average incomes. The study found that students compelled to attend an extra year of school experienced an average increase in annual income of about 12%."

So that means, for someone destine to earn a minimum wage of about 10k a year ... with two years of additional training, at the margins, they can expect to earn just under 125k extra over the course of their working life

My issue with that though is the same one I have here; what of people who drop out not because they are attracted to the immediate promise of a wage and so neglect to consider its future ramifications, but because it is a practical necessity? EMA helps borderline cases, but is neglible to those in real difficulty. But this would lead to use having the same discussion as above, so perhaps we should just agree to disagree!